Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5975945" data-attributes="member: 85870"><p>The other thing I don't think is in 5e's favor is that our natural divisions as players is actually pushing d20 game designs into vastly different directions. Almost all of the post-3.x variants are actually much more focused on pushing the game as far as possible into their system's designed "logical conclusion" within its genre. </p><p></p><p>Having been exposed to a lot of new systems over the past 18 months, I've actually decided that 3.x / Pathfinder are actually somewhat "muddled" in their design scope. The system "works," mostly, but it definitely compromises much of d20's potential elegance AND sophistication by trying to take a "middle road" that can be recognizable as "D&D." </p><p></p><p>In that light, I found myself a little more forgiving of 4e's design, because it definitely stopped trying to follow that middle road quite so much. 4e pushed D&D as far as it could around the "logical conclusion" that balanced tactical combat needed to play a much larger role in gameplay than any other version previously. The fact that I didn't like the result doesn't change the fact that it was also highly innovative. </p><p></p><p>Fantasy Craft, on the other hand, takes the 3.x "core" to another "logical conclusion"--that if we're going to have all of these flexible, "crunchy" bits for characters to fiddle with, then let's make the most logical, sensible, balanced structure around that flexibility as we can--D&D sacred cows be damned. The result is indeed complex, but is both dynamic and coherent in ways that 3.x / Pathfinder can only dream about. </p><p></p><p>Castles and Crusades (and to an extent, True20) go to the opposite "logical conclusion"--rather than focusing on options, d20 makes for a fast, solid, easy-to-master mechanic, and instead of being complex, d20-based systems should leverage that speed and simplicity to allow GMs to focus more on creating stories and settings. </p><p></p><p>Adventurer, Conqueror, King takes AD&D1 father down one of Gygax's "logical conclusions" where characters higher than level 9 are no longer particularly dealing with "monsters in the moathouse," but are rulers of kingdoms and strongholds--and then specifically designing the rules to engage with that conclusion. </p><p></p><p>Would any of these be "unrecognizable," as Ahnehnois suggests, to a typical RPG player? No, not really. But that doesn't change the fact that in very real ways these are different games, with different styles, feels, and aspirations; and playing against a game's "logical conclusion" typically results in a far less satisfying experience. </p><p></p><p>Can D&D Next really emulate all of these styles effectively enough to get people on board? Or will it end up being a case of, "Well, D&D Next is okay, but System X does the same thing, only much better." </p><p></p><p>I think the best case scenario is if D&D Next can emulate with 50-60% effectiveness other styles. I don't think it's enough to totally unite the fanbase. But it may be enough to get some "traction" in the OSR and Pathfinder communities. </p><p></p><p>Sadly, I don't think 4th edition fans are going to get nearly enough of what they want, so it will be up to WotC to make good on their promises to not abandon 4th edition entirely, at least through DDI.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 5975945, member: 85870"] The other thing I don't think is in 5e's favor is that our natural divisions as players is actually pushing d20 game designs into vastly different directions. Almost all of the post-3.x variants are actually much more focused on pushing the game as far as possible into their system's designed "logical conclusion" within its genre. Having been exposed to a lot of new systems over the past 18 months, I've actually decided that 3.x / Pathfinder are actually somewhat "muddled" in their design scope. The system "works," mostly, but it definitely compromises much of d20's potential elegance AND sophistication by trying to take a "middle road" that can be recognizable as "D&D." In that light, I found myself a little more forgiving of 4e's design, because it definitely stopped trying to follow that middle road quite so much. 4e pushed D&D as far as it could around the "logical conclusion" that balanced tactical combat needed to play a much larger role in gameplay than any other version previously. The fact that I didn't like the result doesn't change the fact that it was also highly innovative. Fantasy Craft, on the other hand, takes the 3.x "core" to another "logical conclusion"--that if we're going to have all of these flexible, "crunchy" bits for characters to fiddle with, then let's make the most logical, sensible, balanced structure around that flexibility as we can--D&D sacred cows be damned. The result is indeed complex, but is both dynamic and coherent in ways that 3.x / Pathfinder can only dream about. Castles and Crusades (and to an extent, True20) go to the opposite "logical conclusion"--rather than focusing on options, d20 makes for a fast, solid, easy-to-master mechanic, and instead of being complex, d20-based systems should leverage that speed and simplicity to allow GMs to focus more on creating stories and settings. Adventurer, Conqueror, King takes AD&D1 father down one of Gygax's "logical conclusions" where characters higher than level 9 are no longer particularly dealing with "monsters in the moathouse," but are rulers of kingdoms and strongholds--and then specifically designing the rules to engage with that conclusion. Would any of these be "unrecognizable," as Ahnehnois suggests, to a typical RPG player? No, not really. But that doesn't change the fact that in very real ways these are different games, with different styles, feels, and aspirations; and playing against a game's "logical conclusion" typically results in a far less satisfying experience. Can D&D Next really emulate all of these styles effectively enough to get people on board? Or will it end up being a case of, "Well, D&D Next is okay, but System X does the same thing, only much better." I think the best case scenario is if D&D Next can emulate with 50-60% effectiveness other styles. I don't think it's enough to totally unite the fanbase. But it may be enough to get some "traction" in the OSR and Pathfinder communities. Sadly, I don't think 4th edition fans are going to get nearly enough of what they want, so it will be up to WotC to make good on their promises to not abandon 4th edition entirely, at least through DDI. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top